Health Care is a right - why?

1. 69

   ptosisposted 5 years ago

   https://hubpages.com/health/HealthcareA … -Privilege
   
   Healthcare unlike food and water may not be required on a daily basis.It is a service industry and at best there could be government programmes to assist people in having better accessibility to health care."
   
   How did Americans end up with a system in which employers pay for our health insurance? After all, they don't pay for our groceries or our gas.
   
   1765 University of Pennsylvania opened the first medical college
   
   1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization. Employers could not raise wages so offered Blue Cross/Blue Shield to employees in a tight labor market.
   
   1945 President Truman considered and promoted a national health care system.
   
   1960s aged (Medicare) and poor (Medicaid).
   
   https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto … =114045132
   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upsh … rance.html

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Horseback is correct - whatever makes you decide that health care is a "right"?  If it is some kind of natural "right" then let the (person, god, natural force, whatever) provide it to those that have a "right" to it.  You, maybe, if you are guaranteeing that "right".
      
      Somehow we keep deciding that anything we want, from clean water to clean air to a roof over our heads to food to a cell phone, is somehow a natural "right" and force a third party to provide it for those that won't/can't provide it for themselves.  No, health care is not a "right", guaranteed by our constitution or anything else.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         W finally reveals himself:
         W agrees with Peter Brabeck-Letmathewho said that human beings do not have a right to water.
         W, I sure hope that you are not programming AI for SkyNet.
         
         Nor H or W actually read that quote:
         " ... at best there could be government programmes to assist people in having better accessibility to health care."
         
         Why are arguing about legalistic semantics about rights? Oh - deflection and distraction and straw man attacks Beautiful, just beautiful.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If they do, who is responsible for providing it?  My friend, in building a now home, had to drill his own well - not a soul provided any water except him.  Millions of farmers all over the country have done the same - where is their "right" to water, unless that means "if you can get it"?

            replyreport
      2. 79

         lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It is not a right. But it is the RIGHT thing to do.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Once insurance companies are regulated to provide ONE  reasonably priced service for ONE  payee , then yes  ,You can THEN call it a right .   When they tell me my rates are high to cover those who have not or will not pay , it's not a right !

            replyreport
            1. 79

               lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't call it a right.

               replyreport
            2. 69

               ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Do you pay for all the roads you drive on?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes more than my share !

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Are you a trucker?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        No I live in an RV ,pay registration fees ,vehicle sales tax ,  highway taxes , tolls ,fees  park entrances , fuel taxes .......................face it , you have no argument worthy of debate.
                        
                        You're trying to debate free health care as a fundamental human right , Why is it it seems , the world's never seen any group of people as tight wadded as liberals ," If it's worth having , it's worth having all others pay for it "!

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           ummmmmmmmmm, looks like you are sticking words again in my mouth like an abusing limb:
                           look at the original post, apparently, you misread it:
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           What was your question again? Or did short term memory loss kicked in already like your WOTUS?
                           Would you like one page bullet points to keep you on track with the conversation?
                           
                           Reminder:
                           What was your question again?
                           
                           
                           
                           P.P.S. You are paying taxes like everyone else is - STFU, you're not special - other than being on the short-bus.

                           replyreport
         2. 91

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            ... and that is an admirable thought. Even when it collides with the question of; "At who's cost?"
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 69

               ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Sometimes shared cost is cheaper, especially during a pandemic.
               Was thinking about the homeless in Utah who get free housing and other help to get back to being productive citizens.  It was a cost consideration. It costs $15K to house and consul people back from the brink per year but $24k a year to leave them out on the streets since the homeless take up most of the ER visits the state/county/city pays for the services.  So I'm thinking an ounce of prevention is cheaper than any medical 'cure'.
               
               Another instance is pre-natal care should be free. Why? Because if the baby is born so deformed that it is in a state hospital for the next 70 years that would cost more than the 9 months of free medical to anybody who wants it without fear of going back to Mexico, Oh but then that would be Mexico's problem, so USA couldn't care less.
               
               Sometimes doing the 'right' thing involves choosing between which side effects are you willing to put up with.
               
               We put up with Monstanto Agent Orange which Vietnam lost class action suit, because we are not paying for the deformities after so many generations.
               
               Here is TuDu Hospital 2x examples:
               
               
               
               It's the same stuff in RoundUp. Please do not use RoundUp. RoundUp is diluted Agent Orange. Why is it still legal in USA?
               
               Sorry, but have to look at the over all costs to society.
               Unless you want the pandemic for population control.
               Which is what some guy said was so GREAT about the Black Plague. he said that due to 70% depopulation in Europe is why came out of serfdom hundreds of years before Russia did.  It allowed people to move and demand higher wages.
               
               Maybe that's the goal. Depopulate the brownies via lack of medical care - in order for the supreme rich whitey-tighties to retain on to that last straw of world dominance.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "It costs $15K to house and consul people back from the brink per year but $24k a year to leave them out on the streets since the homeless take up most of the ER visits the state/county/city pays for the services."
                  
                  Gross exaggerations and claims do nothing for your case.  But even if the wild exaggeration had a grain of truth in it, it still comes down to the assumption that health care is a natural right when it plainly is not.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     If truth, I still don't believe it. = W
                     Quit dividing by zero W, none of what you said make no figgin' sense
                     
                     
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        So?  Remove the assumption that society must provide health care for the homeless and what happens to the idea that we have to provide homes because if we don't we will have to pay more health care?  Somehow the argument dissipates into thin air, doesn't it? 
                        
                        Just like your pretty meme, the argument only works under certain conditions; in your case the condition that health care is a right that must be provided to everyone.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           This is coming from the same who said that humans have no right to water.

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              If they do, why do people die every year from lack of potable water?  Is it only some that have the right, while those that don't have the water don't have the right to it either?
                              
                              You keep making these statements, that people have a natural right to this or that, and do so in the face of fact, history and experience telling us that they don't.  Why?

                              replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   And it isn't even mentioned in the constitution ?     Here's a question for you , Of all of the bitter hatred that the left in America throws against the political wall of the health -care  debate ;  Why is it that there aren't interested in any hatred towards a system of incredible profiteering as the overall health care / Insurance co's community in America ?   
   
   You so hate corporatism in general - But adore the  promotion of extending that power to this industry ?

   replyreport
   1. 69

      ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You do not get to speak for me. How dare you. I never said any of those words that you are trying to put in my mouth. Typical abuser - what else do you shove into people's mouths like that? Your limb?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Can't just answer a real question can you .

         replyreport
         1. 69

            ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What was your question?
            Go ahead ask a question.
            Can you ask a simple question - without attacking?
            Are you going to ask an unanswerable question?

            replyreport
3. 87

   Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

   The preamble of the United States Constitution states in the second line;"promote the general Welfare". This could very well include one's health.
   PREAMBLE
   
   We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Does it also include housing, food, cell phones, transportation and anything else people want but don't want to pay for?
      
      Or does "general welfare" mean the welfare of the people as a whole vs the welfare of specific individuals?

      replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   "Promote the general welfare "......Isn't in any way implying that  it's saying" Free ,Free, Free , Hurry  come and get it while it lasts ."

   replyreport